Wherry v Leichhardt Council [2011] NSWLEC 1312

Wherry v Leichhardt Council [2011] NSWLEC 1312

The application, as amended and including agreed consent orders and conditions, does not cause unreasonable impacts on neighbouring amenity, views, privacy, or traffic, satisfies planning controls, and merits approval under s 96.

Parties
Applicant: Lynette Wherry; Respondent: Leichhardt Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision on Consent Orders After Refusal of Modification Application
Outcome
Appeal upheld, modification application approved subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
Development Application Modification, Heritage Conservation, Amenity Impacts, Traffic Impacts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lynette Wherry

Applicant

Leichhardt Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Decision on Consent Orders After Refusal of Modification Application

  1. 1 Whether the proposed modification should be approved under s 96 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
  2. 2 Whether the modification would have unreasonable impacts on amenity, views, privacy, and traffic

Ratio Decidendi

The application, as amended and including agreed consent orders and conditions, does not cause unreasonable impacts on neighbouring amenity, views, privacy, or traffic, satisfies planning controls, and merits approval under s 96.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld, modification application approved subject to conditions.

Orders

  • The appeal be upheld.
  • Modification application No M/2010/169 made pursuant to s 96 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to modify Development Consent No D/2006/605 in relation to premises at 7 Little Edward Street, Balmain be approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure A.